GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.


IRC This user frequents the #gwiki IRC channel.

  IRC can be a quick way to resolve issues of no lasting importance or for things that don't deserve to be written down. Use /query mendel to talk to me (semi-)privately on irc. --mendel  

I reserve the right to edit section titles to coincide with the section content.


Armor crafting project[]

Just have to ask, mind lending a hand with this one? Jennalee 12:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think I have already asked myself the same question? Apart from my real-life obligations that I am currently prrcrasting, what I have on my to-do list right now is debugging AWB so I can finish the maybot cleanup and do the monster skills in the new style. I also want to grasp the site CSS to maybe make a Monaco adaptation. If that bores me, I'll go rewrite some articles that have been tagged for restructuring. Currently I'm trying to draft a deletion policy that is not as far-reaching as what JR is writing because I think that it will lead to more conflicts if that ever gets rules-lawyered. I am also not in the position to reach the majority of armor-crafters in-game, I'm sorry to say. So what I could do I have done, unless you see anything I don't - if that is the case, please suggest. --◄mendel► 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you help incorporate raw data if I posted screenshots of what the crafters offer? Jennalee 14:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You really want me to drop everything I absolutely have to do so I can get into this? Ok, I'll tell you what will happen. At the moment I assume that this project is such a chore because the same info is duplicated in 3 or more places. I will look into the system of guides as it is set up now. I will possibly restructure the system so that any information is not duplicated on the wiki, if at all possible. That probably means either autogenerating the QR guides or getting the info in the other tables out of the QR guides. Then the updates can take place, and they can of course be done from screenshots. Have you checked GWW? --◄mendel► 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
From a cursory look, their information looks to be complete if the intent is just to copy from them. If you do not feel this is worth your time at present, then do not help, I am not forcing you to do this but any help would be welcome. Jennalee 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You mayn't copy their information unless you ask everyone in the History-stuff if you may. License crap :< --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 14:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
But how can they prove we copied it? >.> —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Information isn't copyrightable (although databases in their entirety are - dunno if that applies, but if it did, ANet should have gone after us long ago). To have copyright, you have to have a creative work - and a listing of in-game stats is hardly that (but the formatting might be). --16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am happy to record that some good editors (especially Dr Ishmael, but also Merty and Poki) have noticed my relayed call for help on the Community Portal and did what I could not. There is still work to be done, so please join in if you can! --◄mendel► 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel somewhat obliged to point out that I began updating the Prophecies crafters two weeks ago. Maui sig.png 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I had the project's history open, but missed that - how'd that happen? Too much staring at the screen, I suppose. I'm sorry, you're great. --◄mendel► 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I may not have actually posted on the project's history page, to be honest. I decided on a whim to update all the poor Prophecies crafters, and after I'd started Jedi posted on my talk page observing that my work seemed related to the project. Maui sig.png 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You did strike the proph crafters - third line in the page history, I admit to my shame. --◄mendel► 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls[]

There are other templates that use ifexist calls, Template:DeletedLink among them. Your wording on that page makes it sound like Skill bar is the only template that uses it. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


@ "Testimonials" - brilliant! xD--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summaries are great :o --Shadowcrest 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

talking to Entropy on Xasxas256's talkpage[]

That paragraph was written with second person referring to entropy- did you intend for that to be on Entropy's page or Xasxas'? --Shadowcrest 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As you have correctly concluded, I adress Entropy, and I posted it on XasXas' page - since Entropy has posted there as well, but the Wall of Text lacks structure, hence the new heading. --◄mendel► 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I moved the section to more clearly show what's going on. --◄mendel► 00:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

important part of the political process[]

Wednesday's Freefall. --◄mendel► 00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Read.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 01:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You could have made your life a lot easier and RC a bit emptier if you had posted that on the admin noticeboard. But yeah, I read that. And no, we're not all still here. --◄mendel► 12:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Can't believe I didn't think of that! /doh--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 21:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New user with questionable contribution[]

Good job on assuming good faith and guiding them towards being a better user. I'm a bit quick on the trigger to call vandal..... --JonTheMon 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Time-honored strategy dealing with offenders: "good cop - bad cop". ;-) --◄mendel► 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As you have suggested, rather than just blindly reverting edits, I took the liberty of posting on the users talk page informing them that the edit was undone. You can see how far that got me >_< Oh well, can't win them all. -- Isk8.png I~sk8 (T/C) 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the revert still stands, so that's good. Now the new editor might not know that we don't delete comments on this wiki, but at least you know he's read yours. ;-) --◄mendel► 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


yes, you should've discussed on the talk page. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 12:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Exception: A first revert without any explanation conflicts with GuildWiki:Assume good faith, is not protected by this policy, and may be fair game for re-reversion." (GW:1RV) --◄mendel► 17:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The real reason is that this IP took trouble to get the wording of this trivia note right, re-editing that twice. If you simply revert without any explantion or any helpful hints on how to do better in the future, this editor willcould not edit on this wiki ever again. We cannot afford this. --◄mendel► 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC) (edited 06:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC))
...this editor will not edit on this wiki ever again. This is not a fact, though you state it as such. As an anon, I used to add trivia and notes to many articles; many of which, in turn, were removed due to perceived irrelevancy. I can state with perfect confidence that I continued to edit this wiki. Additionally, should we add trivia to Jakob stating that "Jakob" is an uncommon variant of the male first name "Jacob"? I think not. It would be dumb, no obvious reference to any pop-culture or Guildwarsian event (as most trivia falls under this umbrella), and self-evident. The Gretchen edit is the same. Maui sig.png 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not the removal per se; it is the prompt removal with just a curt note and no explanation whatever or any recognition of his effort. I know how close I've been to never edit on this wiki again when something like that happened to my first edit here. It is impossible for a new editor to know that we only keep trivia if it matches these criteria. Lastly, if you check the trivia note, it is actually false. (I didn't have time to do that yesterday morning, and I didn't even have time to pen an explanation myself). But why are you arguing this here, and not on the article's talkpage, like you should if you wanted to finally revert away the trivia? --◄mendel► 06:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I edited Elder Gretchen to (what I hope is) a compromise. --◄mendel► 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Agent Wolf[]

Hi there, just wanted to say I thought your comment there was very tactful and professional, more so than mine, and just wanted to say well done for being cool headed about it (dunno why, but currently failing @ forumulation, sorry if this is an odd sounding message -->Suicidal Tendencie 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! (With a nick like yours, the occasional odd-sounding message is to be expected.) It took me quite a lot of time to dig into the issue, and to write that down (I am thinking about making a page to copy & paste from in the future), and I know I don't write so well either when I don't have the time. --◄mendel► 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Tips has been restored. *hint* --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --◄mendel► 17:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Was this really necessary?[]

Fork off nobody likes a smartass xP--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't like substituted substrings, so there. --◄mendel► 21:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


^ --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, must've inadvertantly dragged that into the edit window - and it'd hardly show up on the preview since I would only examine what I consciously changed. Thanks for spotting that! I ought to be using AWB, but its use has been encumbered by the discussion on the new bot policy, so I don't want to. :-( --◄mendel► 12:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I see... Ah well, no harm done :> --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 12:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy guide[]

Moved to User:M.mendel/Contoversy Guide -- that kinda thing belongs in the user namespace, not the wiki namespace. --R RPhalange star.png Phalange 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You think I am not serious? That the guide is lacking something? Well, help make it better! --◄mendel► 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It's really not a very nice page. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you add the links and the examples, it is a short index of recent (or past) wiki conflicts - a historical piece we could all learn from. --◄mendel► 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
But we've all been there and seen that (well, most of us). I don't mind having an index of WikiDrama, which is actually a cool idea, but I feel like some people may not appreciate the way you word some of the examples (subjectively that is). History is created by the storytellers after all. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
By the winning side, rather. Felix Omni Signature.png 22:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it used to not be in my userspace (and I don't think it belongs there), so everyone could have mercylessly edited the wording. --◄mendel► 22:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, thanks for the clarification. Also, I'd like to know if the title is intentionally misspelled, since if there is a joke there I missed it. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I was just tired when I wrote it. I'd move it again but I'm tired now. --◄mendel► 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Had it included suggestions to prevent that sort of thing for the future, or ways in which to solve those problems, then it might be something we could learn from. As it is now, it simply looks like a user page with lines to satirise and ridicule past events (most of them directed towards Auron or myself, but it's nothing I can't ignore). It's certainly not something serious to serve as a historical page or something from which we can learn, and it's definitely nothing that should be in the GuildWiki namespace. --R RPhalange star.png Phalange 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It has one line about Auron, one line about you, and three lines about things I have done. If you know suggestions to prevent them, feel free to add a section; my thinkning is that knowing about them helps recognize budding conflicts in the future, and that aids prevention. I don't think there is a recipe for peace - neither here nor elsewhere. Please try rewording my lines without making them convoluted, if you find them satirical or ridiculing. I think they call a spade a spade. I don't see why you can't learn from it. It certainly is historical - or would be if proper links to actual history were added. Shouldn't this be on the article talkpage? --◄mendel► 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh. One line. Kk.
The purpose that comes across on that page is nowhere near the purpose that you speak of here, so I won't be touching it. It stays as your user page. --R RPhalange star.png Phalange 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


where are 'yas? 12:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

May, I am on IRC and on the wiki. Why? --◄mendel► 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

google and redirects[]

Sannse thought you might be able to answer this one: Is the googlebot smart enough to crawl wikis with "redirect=no" or does it index redirects like regular pages? In other words, if we want google to index a moved page for content (instead of the old page), do we have to use a soft redirect from the old page? --◄mendel► 11:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mendel! I'm moving this conversation over here, so the folks here can see it.
I can tell you a lot about Google and redirects -- I'm actually working on a project right now to make that work in a more effective way. But I want to make sure I understand your question. When you say that you've moved a page, do you mean using the move button, or copy-and-pasting the text into another page? If you use the move button, then that'll create a soft redirect automatically.
Tell me a little more about what you mean, and then I'll be happy to tell you more about redirects than you ever wanted to know. :) -- Danny (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the move button create a hard redirect? (Hard = Glittering Dust, soft = Wikipedia:Milestones) ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We moved pages with the move button. That created redirects. We deleted some of those, and people complained that the google result pages didn't exist any more. So now we want to recreate the redirects in such a way that google leads people to the new page.
I am using Wizardboy777's meaning for soft and hard redirect (thank you).
The on-wiki discussion is at User_talk:Dr_ishmael#Nundu_Bay_.28Mission.29_etc. and GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal#redirects_for_capitalisation.
You can't tell me more than I want to know, I am extremely curious. I am also able to read technical texts, if you want to point me at any. --◄mendel► 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Heya! I just noticed this conversation. I talked to Danny about this a while ago, and essentially the problem is that Google doesn't see MediaWiki's redirects as true redirects. If you take a look at Glittering Dust, the problem is that the page is still located at So, rather than Google Seeing that Glittering Dust has moved to Pile of Glittering Dust, it now sees a two completely different pages they are indexed as such. You were correct in your assessment. We are currently working on fixing that problem, but for the time being, the old page will almost always be ranked higher by Google than the new one. --KyleH (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Zomg Grammerz[]

"Reworded better" implies that you're rewording it, and someone else could reword it better. Since it's a new page, you're not rewording it. Take out the 're' :P ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure I reworded/rewrote it, and sure that job could have been better (would have taken more time, though). See the deletion log - RT immediately deleted (again?). --◄mendel► 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
RT tends be rather trigger-happy with deletes and reverts. Felix Omni Signature.png 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
He reverted the Wintersday in June as well, didn't he? ;-) --◄mendel► 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
GuildWiki:RC patrol (which the header links to the history of, showing your edit summary saying "I bet this can be reworded better") has never been deleted and RT hasn't deleted anything with a similar name recently. I think you're thinking of GuildWiki:Archiving Help. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 01:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, of course you're right, I wasn't alert enough to spot that. --◄mendel► 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Did somebody mention a page that I could delete? RandomTime 08:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, don't tempt me, or I'll hit Special:Random 5 times and put copyvio tags on those articles and see what happens... ;-) --◄mendel► 08:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You[]

Thank you, mendel, for creating the new Archiving help guide. Me and soem others created the guide at GWW sometime ago, and I thought for some reason that because I made the first draft it was automatically dual licensed (because my contributions are actually triple licensed), but I realised that because teh other were not it was not compatiable with this wiki. Thank you so much for creating a new version :) --Shadowphoenix 06:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your version was a good blueprint to know what info to include (leaving out the parts that don't apply here), so thanks for bringing it here. --◄mendel► 08:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll, please[]

Nagging question: Is the article plausible. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In the sense of "worthy of being applauded; praiseworthy; commendable; ready"? Well, you'd like it then, wouldn't you? Therefore, it's not. --◄mendel► 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's possibly true. Acorns wasn't plausible. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 00:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was quite an eye-opener for me when PanSola suggested how Acorns could be made better. That would've brought out exactly what facts the editor actually claimed, and how they could (not) be verifyable. Btw, if you wrote an RC patrol miniguide, I'd touch it up for you with respect to phrasing, grammar and spelling. Please? --◄mendel► 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't say acorns plz. What article are we discussing anyway? PossessedLinebeck 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
We aren't discussing any article in particular, just attitudes. --◄mendel► 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it would depend upon several different factors pertaining to the article. Is the article anywhere near believeable? Is there any background or impending proof? Is the article made in a manner as to warrant that it is viable? PossessedLinebeck 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
PL is right, your poll is 100% context-free. There are a lot of things that determine whether a specific article should be deleted or improved.
I delete articles based on our article retention policy and my estimate of their overall value to the wiki. If I see an article that doesn't belong on the wiki (build, guild, price check, etc.) or an article of very little value (decided on a case-by-case basis), I delete it, because we don't retain that information (currently). Most of the time (~90%, based on my experience) this is fine, as the user didn't really care that much about the article they posted. If they do care, then they will take further action - recreating the article, asking me why I deleted it, etc., at which point I will give them an explanation and suggest that they keep it in their userspace. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
my estimate of their overall value to the wiki - my point is, you ought to take into account the potential value, i.e. could others improve the article to have more value than it does now?
this is fine, as the user didn't really care - actually, deleting the contribution might make her not care (historic case of a user who has been deleted off the wiki). If a user contributes, I assume she cares enough to make the contribution, and it is the setback that is an uncommented deletion that causes the frustration with the contribution. Assuming that new users will stand up for their contributions instead of going elsewhere for their hobby is a fallacy, in my opinion.
You, Linebeck and Viper aren't actually giving any more context than my poll has, you are merely stating that "I don't like this article" is an informed opinion, not a gut feeling (is it?). So you three ought to check "Let's delete it". Why are you reluctant to do so? --◄mendel► 07:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like this article" can mean you just don't like how it looks. Does that mean I should delete every page with an, in my opinion, ugly layout? Without context on the subject, I just cannot vote.
I brought up Acorns as an example of what I did not like, and wanted gone. It just wasn't possibly true. However, if it could be true, like the first claims on tonics dropping from the ZChest.. I mean, I still didn't really like it, but I didn't delete it, because it is possible.
The Polar Bear incident was just stupid, actually. First, the claim came in, with a pic. Okay. But then, someone said "Isn't there a Texmod for that?" and the author of the page said "Yes I had Texmod running! Oops!". That's when I started to be suspicious. And, of course, it was the only drop in 3 freaking days.
With just a sentence like "I don't like this article, QQ QQ!", you can't tell if you want the damn page deleted or not. At least, for me. There's more to an article than to like it or not. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even voted, for I am still trying to think what my outlook should be. I assure you I would TRY to AGF if the article deserved it, but If its just plain unlikely/garbage, I would slap a delete tag on it. PossessedLinebeck 16:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:[]

Mendel, did you even look at what that user added to the article (this is Macros's reversion of the vandalism)? He was not simply using it as a sandbox, he was intentionally inserting misinformation into the article. This edit should make that clear. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The user used 10 revisions to arrive there - isn't that quite untypical for a vandal? He didn't use off-topic words, either. If he was intent on vandalism, he could've vandalised 10 articles in the same time, so I AGF and assumed he was sandboxing. Since he was limiting himself to 2 articles, warning and waiting wouldn't have made reverting any more difficult. But since he's been banned, if his IP is not fixed, he's not even going to read my message when he logs back in. We could have lost a potential new editor with an eye for detail. --◄mendel► 07:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Mendel, you're a nice guy and all, but sometimes I think you take AGF too far. --Macros 09:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
10 revisions means seeing the [SHOW PREVIEW] button 10 times, too.
QDV is always nagging a bit. If it is a malicious vandal, and you go to the talk page because you think he's sandboxing( after seeing 1 or 2 edits), you get slapped on the wrists with QDV. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
For a vandal to make 10 revisions to arrive at a particular change might be a bit unusual, but so is a legitimate editor taking 10 revisions. For a vandal to take three or five revisions to get the vandalism how they want it is common. Quizzical 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think not using the Preview button is wiki-newbish behaviour (newb in the friendly sense), and it deserves a friendly pointer.
People slapping your wrist with QDV should be made to actually read it, number 1. goes: Remember to assume good faith when possible. If an IP/account makes a single edit that screws up an article somehow, try to imagine if someone completely new to wiki may have accidentally saved some stuff while experimenting around (or blanking a section etc). If so, kindly point them to the Sandbox, and explain how their edits may have been viewed as disruptive. You may also want to point them to the editing guide and the "Show preview" button. This is sufficient for most new users. So the procedure actually outlined in GW:QDV is, assume good faith, give them a friendly hint, and if they persist being disruptive, then go and QDV away. --◄mendel► 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Macros, if you can't extend AGF to that guy, who can you extend it to? Any more benign and we don't have to assume anything any more because we know! --◄mendel► 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
From the section you quoted: "If an IP/account makes a single edit that screws up an article somehow..." This user did not make just a single edit, or even a couple edits. He made an edit to add a skill, then he made another edit to add another skill AND add a comment to the general description about those two skills. He then made a few edits attempting to change the image to an image of Shiro. If he had made only the first edit, or only the series of edits to the image, I would have been able to AGF, but the addition to the description is what convinced me that this was not just an experimenting wiki-noob. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder if, when dealing with mendel's bizarre soap boxes, we ought to apply the old adage, "Don't feel the troll." Maui sig.png 23:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"Any more benign and we don't have to assume anything any more because we know!" reminded me of Wikipedia:Adminitis :P ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 02:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Dr Ishmael, you take me out of context. Viper wrote "after seeing 1 or 2 edits", and I was responding to that.
I think the editor might have cleaned up after herself when done, or that she mistakenly believed her edit to be humorous, so I AGF.
Overextending AGF is obviously evil and must be stamped out, so let's punish mendel by exploding into talk when it happens, people will think it's mendel's fault. I understand that blocking without warning and giving 3 days for first offenses (not this) are all done in good community spirit [1].
Wiz, when you catch me on irc, you've got to explain in what ways. --◄mendel► 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this entire matter has been blown out of proportion (which is understandable, since we have precious little else to talk about these days). It is my considered opinion that people need to be able to differentiate between malicious vandalism and a joke, and then they ought to be willing to take the joke like a good sport. My idea of malicious vandalism is replacing a page's content with something like "fuck big dick orange." In this case, the IP was probably making something to show his friends, and then if no one else fixed it within a short time he would have done it himself. This behavior isn't necessarily encouraged, but it need not be stamped out either. If you'd like an example, take a look at this edit by none other than our friendly neighborhood Macros. We all had a good laugh and no harm was done.
That being said, I also believe that no harm was done by immediately reverting and by banning the IP. If I may share a personal story, back in 2006 my friend and I had finished a Physics lab early and were looking for something to do. We used one of the lab computers to special:randompage Wikipedia, and came upon Shadrach Bond. Being the hilarious geniuses that we are, we changed the page to this. It was reverted the next day and my home IP was banned for a day or something, since I had applied the finishing touches after school. To date, it is still one of the funniest things we've ever done, and I certainly do not resent Wikipedia for the revert and ban. In conclusion, settle down folks. It was just a joke. Felix Omni Signature.png 04:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well said Felix. And sidenote to your wikipedia story... It is hilarious that the image you uploaded is still there too :P -- Isk8.png I~sk8 (T/C) 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If I were an admin, what I would have done is revert the edits, then wait. If they edited it again, I would have banned them. If I was in a generous mood, I might have posted something on their talkpage like, "Please don't add misleading information to articles because that could be considered [spam/vandalism (depends on my mood)] and can get you banned." If they then replied they didn't know what the hell they were doing, I would direct them to the sandbox. --Macros 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)